1. The letters exchanged between Patricio Aylwin, President of the Christian
Democrat Party “in recess” and General Oscar Bonilla, the then-Minister of Interior,
as a consequence of the fact that the Presidente Balmaceda radio station had
been placed under censorship beginning June 7, 1974 are a matter of public record.
This measure has not been applied to other radio stations, and it does not appear
to be based on constitutional provisions.

There is a general consensus that most of the radio stations have imposed
strict self-censorship on themselves to avoid making censorship more widespread.
Of course, not a single word of disagreement with the Government program nor
the most measured or respectful criticism of its actions are heard on the radio.

According to sources the Commission considers worthy of credit, in the Presidente
Balmaceda radio, the censorship imposed since June 7 has resulted in the adoption,
among others, of the following measures:

a) Prohibition of broadcasting the news comments of Professor Jaime Castillo
and the journalist Marta Caro;

b) Prior censorship of radio editorials and the commentaries of the journalist
Ignacio González, which made it necessary to suspend those programs;

c) Prior censorship of all news programs, including sports programs;

d) Censorship initially of some passages of the Encyclicals Quadragesimo Anno,
Matter at Magistra and Populorum Progressio. Censorship was later extended to
Rerum Novarum and to any quotation from the Encyclicals referring to economic
or social matters; and

e) Prohibiting the broadcast of certain musical compositions.

All of the orders of on these measures have been given orally.

2. According to the same sources, stricter prohibitions have been imposed
on television channels. They cannot broadcast any kind of program that might
conceivably lead to the free exchange of ideas on political or social questions

3. With regard to newspapers, those that have survived are subject to strict
standards of self-censorship. The complete elimination of political topics and
the rare unanimity of opinion on questions touching on the political field clearly
show that these media of expression and information lack freedom.

4. The restrictions extend to publishing houses. According to sources the
Commission considers reliable, one publisher has been prohibited from selling
no less than 20 editions, and has been ordered to destroy five.

B. The Crime of Opinion

1. In the preamble of Decree-Law 77, appear phrases like the following: “Marxist
doctrine encloses a concept of man and of society which impairs the dignity
of human beings”; “Marxist doctrine… is irreconcilable… with the hierarchical
and professional nature of the country's armed forces”; “The mission of extirpating
Marxism from Chile has fallen on the new Government….”

Based on a preamble of this kind, the above-mentioned Decree-Law Nº 77: a)
Has prohibited and declared illicit associations with “all those entities, groups,
factions or movements that maintain the Marxist doctrine” (Art. 1); b) Has declared
that “the mere fact of organizing, promoting or causing the organizations of
the unlawful associations referred to in the preceding article constitutes a
crime” (Art. 2); c) Has prohibited “any propaganda action, orally, in writing
or by any means of the Marxist doctrine or any other doctrine substantially
in agreement with its principles and objectives” (Art. 3); and d) Has authorized,
for infraction of the above-mentioned provisions, the penalties of imprisonment
and absolute disqualification for any kind of public or semi-public office (Art.
4).

The mere fact of maintaining or disseminating a particularly political philosophical
doctrine has become a criminal act. The crime extends to any expression of political,
sociological, economic, historic or philosophical thinking derived from the
teachings of Karl Marx and his followers.

It should be noted that the decree-law does not refer to unlawful intervention
of foreign countries organized under totalitarian forms, that are disposed to
such interference. The decree-law flatly punishes the maintenance of an ideology.

2. Hence the members of the Commission heard during their visit to Chile the
highest authorities of the country speak of “Marxism” (used generically this
way) as though that word labeled a criminal activity, and heard them maintain
that the Government should endeavor to “eradicate” that ideology. Whatever the
consequences of actions based on a particular ideology, in any event, and whatever
the value judgment merited by that kind of thinking, it is clear that ideologies
cannot be eliminated the way an epidemic disease or a serious social vice is
eliminated, if the basic principles of a representative democratic system of
government are to survive.

3. This deviation from the recognition of freedom of opinion is undoubtedly
the result of temporary political circumstances and emotional factors. It is
to be hoped that once they have both been overcome, the upholding or dissemination
of particular ideas will cease to be punished as a crime. However, it must be
noted for now that this has been classified as a criminal act in Chile, for
the avowed purpose of “eradicating” a particular conception of society and of
the causes of historical change. Undoubtedly we can disagree with that concept,
but the only way of eliminating it without paying too high a price is by the
appeal to reason and persuasion.

It is inadmissible that, because of the mere fact of upholding and disseminating
a certain ideology, a man becomes a kind of “untouchable”, who it is considered
legitimate to deprive of the possibility of working, deny him the free expression
of its thought, and even send him to jail.

4. It is inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law to introduce
discrimination among the citizenry, in an area so far from ideological conviction
as, for example, that of investigating the discharge of tax obligations, by
investigating only those who uphold a particular ideology.

The same is true for any other kind of State intervention in the life of the
inhabitants of a country, if the criteria for whether or not to intervene consists
solely of discrimination of an ideological kind.